Ukraine vs Israel: Which Policy Do You Prefer?

In the current crisis, Ukrainians have shown extreme levels of restraint, coming out to meet the Russian thugs unarmed and offering peaceful resistance to the invaders.

I think it makes sense to compare Ukraine to Israel. Both are beleaguered nations with a recent experience of horrific genocide. Both have had to restore a mostly dead language. Both possess territories that have been disputed by other nations. Both have a historically tense relationship with the closest neighbors.

Israel, however, is proceeding in the opposite manner. Just today it bombed 3 military bases in Syria. There is not a whiff of peaceful resistance in this country.

Let’s remember that Ukraine is losing territories as a result, while Israel is gaining territory. Let’s remember also that the resulting death toll in Ukraine has been minimal.

Which of these policies appeals to you more and why? I mean, of course, if you lived in one of these countries.

Rate this:

28 responses to “Ukraine vs Israel: Which Policy Do You Prefer?”

danmillerinpanama

March 19, 2014

Israel is recognizing, increasingly, that she has to look out for her own interests because, despite pleasing affirmations that her security is important to them, others will not protect her effectively. Her military actions have generally been defensive, in responsive to attacks. I think she has been doing a good job of keeping the nation secure.

Israel has long been developing her defensive and, if necessary, offensive capabilities. Has Ukraine? If not, how can one usefully compare their responses?

LikeLike

Stringer Bell

March 19, 2014

I don’t think the comparison is apt. Israel is an aggressor and Ukraine is a victim of aggression. Their goals are therefore different, and I imagine that their policies and strategies to achieve these goals will naturally diverge. Wouldn’t Palestine be a better comparison here?

Slightly off-topic but I absolutely agree with you that economic sanctions work. That is the one glimmer of hope for the Palestinian people in their struggle.

LikeLike

Dreidel

March 19, 2014

I also don’t think the comparison is apt, but not for the reasons Stringer Bell stated.

Ukraine doesn’t dare strike back, because its government knows that Russia, which has overwhelming military superiority, is looking for an excuse to occupy more of the country. So for Ukraine, striking back would be counter-productive.

Israel is stronger than its hostile neighbors, but they want to see Israel destroyed. So they try to wear it down with relentless small attacks that the Israelis have no choice but to swat away. The restrained, limited Israeli responses aren’t aggression — they’re legitimate self-defense. In Israel’s case, not striking back would be a mistake, as it would only encourage more aggression from those who want to destroy the country.

LikeLike

Alexander

March 19, 2014

Lots of countries are going to make the comparison of Ukraine and Israel and come to one conclusion:

Gotta get us some nukes.

Afghanistan/Iraq compared to Iran/North Korea was a huge swing in that direction, and the Libya followup pushed the point home.

But here for the first time, we have a country that actually surrendered nuclear weapons… that will never, ever happen again. And while it’s one thing for the ‘haves’ to keep an eye on one particular region of the world, it’s going to be a much tougher sell when suddenly everyone from Poland to Saudi Arabia to Japan demands the right to the nuclear deterrent.

The other lesson – one that has been forgotten in the peace following the cold war is that a nation that depends on the promises of another nation for its territorial integrity… is not truly an independent nation. That’s another lesson that won’t be forgotten for quite some time, and as Americans who have exercised enormous leverage in foreign policy over the past decades trading on the idea that you *could*… we’re going to suffer the consequences.

LikeLike

Clarissa

March 19, 2014

“But here for the first time, we have a country that actually surrendered nuclear weapons… that will never, ever happen again.”

– Excellent point. I haven’t thought about this aspect of the issue but yes, you are absolutely right. This will be another tragic consequence of what is happening: now it will be impossible to convince any country not to develop its own nuclear arsenal.

“The other lesson – one that has been forgotten in the peace following the cold war is that a nation that depends on the promises of another nation for its territorial integrity… is not truly an independent nation.”

– Please comment more often if you can because I’m loving your comments.

LikeLike

Reply
1. danmillerinpanama
  
  March 19, 2014
  
  Libya relinquished her nukes “voluntarily” and is now a generally disorganized mess. North Korea has pointed to Libya as an excellent reason not to do the same.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. el
  
  March 20, 2014
  
  \\ “The other lesson – one that has been forgotten in the peace following the cold war is that a nation that depends on the promises of another nation for its territorial integrity…
  
  Israel has never forgotten this lesson. One reads in newspapers and everywhere all the time that we can’t trust anybody (not America, not international forces, nobody) to protect us, except our own military strength.
  
  \\ now it will be impossible to convince any country not to develop its own nuclear arsenal.
  
  Those to whom it may apply know it already. Like Iran.
  
  \\ I absolutely agree with you that economic sanctions work. That is the one glimmer of hope for the Palestinian people in their struggle.
  
  I don’t think they really work on Israel, which has many actual and potential markets in addition to a siege mentality (partly justified) of “everybody against us … never again (genocide)” Have those sanctions ever worked on Israel, that you put trust in them?
  
  The best glimmer of hope for the Palestinian people would be a growing belief among Israeli Jews that peaceful co-existence of two countries is possible, that Israel strengthens its military security and thus economic prosperity (even if it pays with territories) by signing the agreement. That Palestinians will both sign and fulfill the contract, since Israel isn’t foolish to depend on USA to do so.
  
  I am for two countries for two people and peace between us and Palestinians.
  
  Example why economic sanctions won’t work as much as you hope: nowadays people in Israel are relieved we didn’t return Golan Heights in exchange for peace agreement with Syria. Do you think Israeli public will say today “economic sanctions would turn returning GH into the right decision”? There are some (mainly religious) supporters of “Greater Israel”, but most of public is afraid of rockets more than anything in case of agreement only making Israel more vulnerable, imo.
  
  The Knesset on Wednesday approved the third and final bill of the coalition’s “package deal” – the referendum law, thus enshrining as a virtually unchallengeable Basic Law the requirement of popular approval for any withdrawal from sovereign Israeli territory.
  
  In an unusual move prior to the vote, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mounted the podium and called on Knesset members to pass the legislation. “A decision on a diplomatic agreement must be acceptable to the public,” Netanyahu said. He contended that if a peace agreement with the Palestinians is reached – “and this is a big ‘if,’” he noted – approval of it by the public in a referendum “is the only thing that will preserve the domestic peace among us.”
  
  Under the law, any government decision to give up part of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights, which Israel annexed, would require approval in a referendum before it could be carried out. But the law would not apply to withdrawals from the West Bank, which was not annexed.
  http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.579475
  
  \\ In Israel’s case, not striking back would be a mistake, as it would only encourage more aggression
  
  Yes, and also striking back too hard would be a mistake, bringing nothing good for Israel, which isn’t interested in occupying Gaza f.e.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 20, 2014
    
    I chose Israel as a point of comparison and not Palestine because I needed a country that has been independent for a short while. A pre-independence struggle is very different.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
3. Alexander
  
  March 20, 2014
  
  El,
  
  Well of course. To put it bluntly though, your country is under no illusions: if it ever forgets the lesson, it won’t be given a second chance to relearn it.
  
  It’s astonishing how much power the United States has squandered in the last decade. There was a time when dollar bills could be exported as a finished product and imports could be had (or at least, significantly discounted) merely for the promise of being a benevolent master. No more.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 20, 2014
    
    Alexander: again, I agree completely. What do you see as the reasons for the US folding its wings on the international arena? I see two for now: the dependence on foreign oil and the growing incapacity of voters to accept any kind of discomfort. I think there might be something else, though.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
4. Alexander
  
  March 20, 2014
  
  Wow, it’s 2014 already. “Decade” doesn’t quite do it justice, as my point was not to implicate only one party in this great squandering.
  
  The tipping point was 2002, when George Bush announced three threats to world peace and proceeded to do nothing to the two capable of some level of retaliation.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 20, 2014
    
    Yes, this is definitely not the problem of a specific party. Although I have to say as a supporter of Obama in both elections, he greatly disappointed with his stance on Ukraine.
    
    Navalny says in his article that it is as if there were a magic circle drawn around the Russian oligarchs. These oligarchs are a creation of the former KGB. I’m yet to understand the nature of the magic that protects them in the West.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply

cliff arroyo

March 19, 2014

Rules for any country to live by

1. Never trust the Russian state

2. Never rely on the American government when the going gets rough

3. If you don’t look out for your own interests, don’t expect other countries to

LikeLike

Titfortat

March 19, 2014

@Cliff

#3 is good advice for your kids. Just change countries for
people. 🙂

LikeLike

Clarissa

March 19, 2014

“#3 is good advice for your kids. Just change countries for
people.”

– Actually, yes, it’s great advice. Learned helplessness sin adults is very annoying.

LikeLike

Reply

cliff arroyo

March 19, 2014

4. If you have nukes, don’t give them up for fancy promises.

NKorea and Iran will be paying attention.

LikeLike

n8chz

March 19, 2014

Ukraine is a much younger nation state (in the Wesphalian sense) than Israel. Perhaps it’s a question of how much longer before the Ukrainian state’s business model loses its innocence.

LikeLike

Titfortat

March 19, 2014

5. Let our populations actually think we might go to war. While we all party on their tax dollars.

6. Create boogeymen(al qaeda) so everyone thinks we need all these guns and bullets and bombs, while we party on their tax dollars.

😦

LikeLike

John Hayden

March 19, 2014

I agree, Ukraine is to be commended for showing more restraint in the present crisis than any of the other players, especially Russia, U.S. and UK. I hope their restraint pays off in a favorable resolution for Ukraine. In that case, they could be setting the example for a new and better model of settling international and cross-border tensions. That is, diplomacy and patience, not war or economic war.

LikeLike

Clarissa

March 19, 2014

I really wonder if you would feel the same way if your country were invaded, your grandma beaten up in the street, your book club thrashed, your business expropriated, your books in your language burned, and you humiliated and ridiculed for your ethnicity, language and culture in your own town. I really, really wonder if you would see this situation as a new and better model.

LikeLike

Reply

John Hayden

March 19, 2014

It’s only a new and better model IF it ends in some compromise that is favorable to Ukraine, or at least acceptable.

LikeLike

Alexander

March 20, 2014

Compromise what? Russia is getting everything she wants, and still holds Europe’s energy lifeline hostage while John Kerry gives the oligarchs ample time to shift their money and (hilariously!) strengthens Putin’s hand by forcing those same groups to make amends with him.

Transnistria, Eastern Ukraine, Estonia are now being whispered about. So if we’re going to redefine compromise as ‘well, the Russians agreed not to annex Poland and Finland again, so VICTORY!’ then it’s not going to be in the cards.

Furthermore, I would argue that Ukraine is showing no more ‘restraint’ than a first-grader having his lunch money stolen by the fourth-grade bully. Restraint implies that strength is being voluntarily withheld – this is not the case. In fact, (as I stated earlier) enormous strength was voluntarily surrendered years ago in exchange for a promise of protection. It will do us no good in the days and years to come to pretend weakness is a virtue.

LikeLike

Clarissa

March 20, 2014

“Furthermore, I would argue that Ukraine is showing no more ‘restraint’ than a first-grader having his lunch money stolen by the fourth-grade bully. Restraint implies that strength is being voluntarily withheld – this is not the case.”

– Yes. You are absolutely right. Over the past couple of years, Yanukovich effectively dismantled Ukraine’s military. Now many people are wondering if he did so on direct orders from Putin.

Today, the Ukrainians at the military base of Bilbek shot back at the invaders, forcing them to retreat. But it’s an isolated case.

“Compromise what? Russia is getting everything she wants, and still holds Europe’s energy lifeline hostage while John Kerry gives the oligarchs ample time to shift their money and (hilariously!) strengthens Putin’s hand”

– Absolutely! Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine’s government, so there can be no discussion between Russia and Ukraine leading to a compromise.

LikeLike

Reply

March 20, 2014

Russia signaled concern on Wednesday at Estonia’s treatment of its large ethnic Russian minority, comparing language policy in the Baltic state with what it said was a call in Ukraine to prevent the use of Russian.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319

Каганов (author) —

Настоящий украинец — патриот родной страны.
Настоящий украинец в принципе против войны,
но готов воевать, как только сверху попросят.
Настоящий украинец стоит с автоматом в руке.
Настоящий украинец говорит на русском языке,
а украинский — языком не считает вовсе.

Настоящий украинец с боем штурмует чердак.
Настоящий украинец гордо вешает флаг
соседней страны. А флаг Украины снимает.
Настоящий украинец спит и видит сны.
Сны о том, как свою страну или часть страны
он отдаст другой стране, и желательно к маю.

Настоящий украинец должен быть только таким.
Если нет — то что-то наверно неправильно с ним,
поскольку все остальные конкретно неправы.
Настоящий украинец делает это всерьез.
А если не делает — значит, кто-то промыл ему мозг,
значит, он сепаратист, террорист и агент иностранной державы.

LikeLike

Clarissa

March 20, 2014

It has come to a point where we are all sitting here, trying to guess which country Putin will overtake next, Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia. It really has to be a NATO country next. Just to show who’s boss.

Thank you for the poem, fellow Ukrainian exile. 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
1. el
  
  March 20, 2014
  
  Not an exile. 🙂
  
  Btw, I read “At the Mind’s Limits”, Essays by Jean Améry and loved them a great deal.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. Dreidel
  
  March 20, 2014
  
  Putin isn’t going to send Russian troops onto a NATO country unless he’s totally insane (he isn’t). He knows that even Obama would have NO CHOICE but to respond militarily because of NATO’s Article 5 obligations.
  
  The Russians are being clever by complaining about ethnic oppression in Estonia and giving the impression that a NATO country might be next. Then, when Russia doesn’t actually cross any NATO borders, Obama can claim that the current sanctions have worked and that the Putin has been forced to show restraint, so more sanctions aren’t needed.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 20, 2014
    
    This is a very interesting analysis.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply

Clarissa's Blog